Tina WallaceAugust 2012

Learning frominternationaldevelopmentgrant making:a review of the Baringand John Ellerman Foundations’programme

2

PHOTO COURTESY OF LINKS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

Contents

Summary 4

Introduction 7

Part 1: Trust and foundation funding in international development. 9

Part 2: Overview of grant making at the Baring Foundation. 12

Part 3: Analysis of the key elements to international development 15grant making.

Part 4: Organisational issues fro BF/JEF and some other foundations. 33

Part 5: Learning about grant making from the review and key principles 36identified.

Part 6: Concluding comments. 38

Bibliography 41

Annexes

1. Methodology. 43

2. People interviewed. 45

About the Author

Tina Wallace is an international Adviser to the Baring Foundation’s grants programme.She has worked in development for over 30 years, as a University teacher and researcher inUK and Africa, and with International NGOs. She has extensive experience of field-basedwork in Africa, Asia and the Middle East, in research and development practice. She hasworked in INGOs such as Oxfam and World University Service, and now works as a freelancerwith a wide range of UK and African NGOs. She is affiliated to International Gender Studiesat Lady Margaret Hall, Oxford University. She has published widely, especially on gender anddevelopment issues and the changing roles and purpose of development NGOs.

3

Summary

The Baring Foundation (BF) commissioned this review of their international developmentgrant making to learn how it influences the work of NGOs, north and south, and whatdifferent stakeholders experience as ‘good’ grant making. Good grant making is understoodto include the building of strong working relationships as well as enabling positive work totake place in difficult contexts. BF believes that the way grants are given influences the wayNGOs behave, what is funded and how money is accounted for.

The focus is the work of the BF and the John Ellerman Foundation (JEF), who have co-funded development NGOs working with forcibly displaced people since 2004. The reviewuses existing documentation and extensive interviews with grantees, Trustees, the Directors,and peer observers of current grant making in UK. Information about other grant makers,written and verbal, has been included where relevant.

The context is one of intense competition for funding among NGOs, extensive time spent inapplications, pressure to over-promise ambitious targets and to show success to getcontinued funds. Foundations can work differently from donors constrained by Governmentrequirements and media scrutiny and they are potentially able to maintain

• Independence of thought and action• Flexibility• Freedom to take risks

This independence is seen as critical at a time when the independence of the voluntarysector appears under threat.

The report looks at how the BF and JEF use these characteristics at each stage of grantmaking, from application through to evaluations, learning from multiple sources about whatis done, how well the processes work and what different people appreciate or are concernedabout. From the detailed work undertaken, which is intended to share experience andlearning with others doing or planning to do similar work, some overall principles emerged.

Key concerns around grant making raised during this review

The following recurring themes emerged, which echo those to be found in the NGOsevidence, with one dominating around the autonomy of NGOs and the appropriatebalance between listening to, and complying with, donors, whose demands are constantlyrising and allowing needs of communities and local partner organisations to drive agendas.It is clear that:

4

1. There is a lot of fear/anxiety in relation to high donor demands around grant making.

2. There are high levels of anxiety around grant seeking because of the intense competitionand the high expectations based on target setting.

3. The growing reliance on paperwork and complex documentation appears to be replacingthe need for good relationships and spaces for negotiation and shared problem solving.

4. The high costs of completing applications involving extensive paperwork, and growingmonitoring and evaluation demands are not covered by the grants given.

5. There is very limited availability of funds for skills building and covering core costs.

6. The rush for demonstrable results in the short term, using quantitative methods (notuseful in some contexts) is often not realistic.

7. The ‘diminishment of staff’ as reliance on fixed paper-based plans and evidence replaceconfidence in their judgment; they are increasingly working within narrow bureaucraticconstraints. Essential skills for development such as initiative, understanding of context,ability to work well with people are being squeezed out by rigid systems approaches.

8. Multiple and contradictory formats, tools, focus, and the ever-changing ideas comingfrom different donors, makes it difficult for partners in Africa to follow or to work withthese changes. Local staff feel they get little support to develop their skills, and theyneed many as development work is complex and demanding, while demands from thedonors increasingly take time and attention away from the work at the local level.

Approaches that support NGOs in development work:key principles

The following principles drawn directly from this review are supported by evidence fromseveral recent UK studies:

1. The importance of face-to-face contact, respect, and building mutual relationships.People are key to enabling and promoting transformative change.

2. The need to be flexible, responsive, and to expect the unexpected.

3. The importance of supporting local agendas.

4. The need to work with those who have a shared vision.

5. The importance of investing in building local and UK organisational capacities, includinginvesting in core costs.

6. The importance of learning from experience.

7. The need to accept the long-term timescales needed for real change.

8. The understanding that money is essential, yet not the most important element inbringing about social change.

5

9. The need to see development as a joint venture, working with diverse realities andrequiring a joint problem sharing approach.

10. The need to remember ‘no one size fits all’ and to tailor the approach and grantdemands to the organisation involved.

11. The need to recognise donor power and the need ‘to use it well’ to challenge, support,expand, listen, and learn, not imposing ideas and frameworks that take time and maynot help.

12. The importance of ensuring good governance at all levels.

The grant making of BF and JEF has enabled many development staff to do excellent workin difficult conditions, it has also allowed people to learn from the inevitable failures anddifficulties of working with the most vulnerable. This way of funding appears under threatand is seen to be supportive of building the relationships and skills that can allow positivechange to happen.

6

Introduction

The Baring Foundation commissioned this review of their international grant making.The intention is to draw out learning around funding and how this shapes the work ofNGOs, north and south, and what different stakeholders experience as ‘good’ grant making.Good grant making is understood to include the building of strong working relationships aswell as enabling positive work to take place in very difficult contexts.

The review is based on existing documentation and extensive interviews with grantees,Trustees, the two Directors, and peer observers of current grant making in the UK.Information about other grant makers was forthcoming during discussions and, whererelevant, this has been included.

Grants are a major source of funding for the UK development sector. Many small andmedium-sized NGOs are almost entirely reliant on grant funding and large NGOs now raisesubstantial funding through grants, from institutional donors as well as Trusts andFoundations. The way grants are given influences the way NGOs behave, what is funded andhow the money is accounted for. Grant making is a critical component of the developmenteffort yet often little discussed. There are major shifts taking place in the way major donors

7

PHOTO, PEACE DIRECT, COURTESY OF HENRI LADYI

allocate aid funding and new players are entering the funding arena and more evidence andanalysis is needed to understand what changes in funding regimes mean for thedevelopment work of grantees.

For NGOs competition for funding is high, applications absorb a great deal of time that isoften not remunerated. There is pressure to over-promise ambitious targets and to showsuccess to get continued funds. There are concerns among many NGOs that rising donorconditionalities, intended to improve efficiency and effectiveness, can have unintendedeffects such as taking time away from work with local partners and changing – not always inpositive ways - the way the work is done.1

This report is intended to contribute evidence from the experience of two Foundationsabout the relationship between funding and development work. This evidence is primarilyabout Foundations, players often able to be more open and responsive to NGOs by virtue oftheir independence. It is intended to:

1. inform BF/JEF about the strengths of their approach and highlight issues to be addressedto improve the work.

2. share with other Trusts and Foundations the learning to date from BF and other donors.

3. inform newly forming Trusts and Foundations about issues in international grant making.

4. draw out the key principles, identified by a range of stakeholders, that can contribute togood grant making.

5. promote discussions within the aid sector about the role, power and potential ofdifferent approaches to grant making.

8

1 Emma Crewe 2007 writes about the trends: ‘What is our relationship with our donors like? How does it work?First, we are experts… on reading what they want to hear and translating what our partners want to do intodonors’ priorities, language and timeframe. We don’t lie but we endlessly re-present… during the processes ofaccountability we reinvent the past by translating their annual and final reports back into the priorities andlanguage of the specific donor‘ (P1)

Part 1. Trust and Foundation fundingin international development

It is important to put this work into the wider context of the role and place of UK Trusts andFoundations in development funding. What follows is a brief overview drawing on three keystudies, Going Global (de Las Casas and Fiennes, 2007); Global Grant-making (Pharoah andBryant, 2011); and the work of the Panel on Independence on protecting the independenceof the voluntary sector (Baring Foundation, 2012).

The process of grant making

Essentially grant making is a process of finding, selecting, funding and supportingorganisations in order to use the funds available for achieving clear development objectives.Monitoring and evaluation, for both accountability and learning purposes, usually follow.

At each stage there are choices to be made: for example, deciding the relative costs andbenefits of different methods; ensuring the proportionality of the systems for complianceand control; and how far to prioritize building relations of trust and openness. How highly islearning for the implementers and community valued, what value is placed on quantitativeand qualitative evidence of change and whose voices count most?

There is a diversity of practice across Foundations and Trusts, from those with detailed paperbased processes and auditing, through to those using a light touch. The way grant making isstaffed and decisions about whom to fund, and for how long, also vary widely.

The size of Trust and Foundation funding for internationaldevelopment

In 2011 £292m was spent through Trusts and Foundations (including the largest, such asComic Relief, The Wellcome Trust and Big Lottery Fund). This is equivalent to just under halfof DFID spending on NGOs (Pharoah and Bryant, 2011) but represents just 9% of all UKgrant making foundations. 90% of UK Foundations do not fund internationally (de Las Casasand Fiennes, 2007).

90 Trusts and Foundations make grants to development NGOs (or Universities) above £50,000a year, more give smaller grants. The 2011 report concluded that ‘relatively low-levelfunding can have a transformational power’ in the international arena, so small grants havevalue (ibid, p.5).

9

The focus of this funding

37% goes to Africa, especially East Africa. Asia receives 23%. The funding is for diversework, though many Trusts and Foundations follow the UK Government in working in health,education and sustainable development. Some work within the framework of theMillennium Development Goals, others respond to new needs and work in areas considered‘hard to fund’.

The funding is usually delivered through civil society organisations, especially NGOs.The focus can change over time, with Trustees changing their strategy or seeing newopportunities arising from experience. For example, the Nuffield Foundation moved awayfrom numerous grants given through open tender to an approach focused on selecting afew known organisations to work in key thematic areas.2

Risks

The challenges of funding at distance are real, including understanding often poor andremote contexts, having sufficient oversight of the work, language and cultural issues.Trusts and Foundations manage these risks in different ways, with almost 70% using UKNGOs to carry out these functions. Many also require external, independent evaluations.

Some directly fund organisations in Africa or Asia but mitigate their risks by fundingorganisations known to them over many years. Several Foundations value knowingorganisations well and see developing trust with grantees as a key way of managing risks,including the Nuffield and the Baring Foundations.

The benefits of funding from Trusts and Foundations

The three reports highlight core characteristics and the value of Trust funding, characterizingthem as:

• Highly independent with diverse patterns of funding, often to neglected areas• Undertaking strategic and grassroots work• Targeting civil society, in ways they feel have most impact• Support for existing organisations and for new ones• The value of these funds at a time when NGOs experience great competition for funds • They can take a flexible/responsive approach to unpopular causes and new issues

Foundations stress their unique position (especially those not subject to intense mediascrutiny or Government regulation) as:

• Independence of thought and action• Flexibility• Freedom to take risks

This independence is critical at a time when the independence of the voluntary sectorappears under threat, especially because of a heavy reliance on statutory/institutionalfunding. The Panel on Independence of the Voluntary Sector (Baring Foundation, 2012)

10

2 Personal interview and information from Nuffield Foundation, 2010, Capacity for change: A review of the NuffieldFoundation Commonwealth Programme. Nuffield Foundation, London.

highlighted the importance of protecting the voluntary sector and enabling it to retainindependence of voice, action and purpose, which are clearly at risk because of:

• tight statutory funding models, which are imposed• the NGO’s lack of ability to shape these models • the blurring of boundaries between the voluntary and other sectors• self-censorship and other challenges to their independence of voice• threats to their independent governance• the need for stronger safeguards and effective regulation.

These are all issue for UK NGOs working in the development sector.

Issues of governance

Trusts and Foundations are regulated by the Charity Commission and post their annualaccounts and reports to them; these are accessible to the public and subject to CharityCommission scrutiny.

Many Foundations subscribe to the new global commitments at Busan (INTRAC, 2012),to ensure that all development funding is transparent, although how far Trusts andFoundations will participate in the global database being developed is unclear. The recentselect committee on Trusts and Foundations working in development did recommend closerliaison with DFID and better access to DFID, which is welcome and will enable them toparticipate more in public debates.

Internal governance is carried out through the Trustees, who are responsible for ensuringgood financial probity and management of the Foundation/Trust.

Key questions for Trusts and Foundations from these reviews

The most important challenges raised by these reports, that need addressing, are

1. The need for more debate about their specific role and effective contribution todevelopment work.

2. Whether to fund independently or through larger programmes.

3. How best to empower civil society and help build sustainable routes out of grantdependency.

4. The need to support the independence of the voluntary sector, including NGOs workingin development.

11

Part 2. Overview of grant making at theBaring Foundation

Some key changes over time

In 2004 BF entered into collaboration with JEF to increase the size of their grant making:the JEF funding went into grants and BF continued to carry the costs of grantadministration. In 2005 the two Directors, with an Adviser, refocused the programme to:

• reduce the number of applications received by focusing and tightening the guidelines • simplify the guidelines • invite grantees in UK to BF special seminars• encourage people to ask BF for technical support• have a strong focus on external evaluation at the end of every project.

In 2006 BF stopped funding in Latin America and focused only on Africa.

In 2007 an external review of the funding (Silkin, 2007), looked especially at issues such asfocus and learning. The feedback from UK grantees was positive; NGO staff stressed thevalue of the personal way grants were managed, allowing discussion, openness, andnegotiation. Four features were especially highlighted:

1. The priority given to capacity building and core costs – to enable partnerships todevelop and to build local leaders. Official aid was draining this work of funds becausethe emphasis was increasingly on tangible results and aid effectiveness. Core costs werehard to raise.

2. Funding in areas others see as risky – BF is not prescriptive and is willing to fund e.g.small organisations and work in unstable areas.

3. High quality support – this was described as open, flexible and accessible. This contactallowed more of a partnership and good quality communication; NGOs felt supportedand not judged. This was motivating, especially because feedback was quick, approachesflexible, and BF know there will almost always be problems in implementing grants.

4. A commitment to lesson learning – while NGOs appreciate this focus on learning, inpractice this was seen to be somewhat ad hoc and unsystematic. There was a sense in BFthat the portfolio was diverse and so lesson learning was difficult. The question aboutfocus was related to whether this would enhance BF ability to learn from the grantsmore coherently.

12

The review concluded that overall the grant making was working well.Some recommendations for improvement were made and following Silkin:

• The purpose for the grants was simplified to ‘improve the effectiveness of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and community-based organisations (CBOs) in Sub-Saharan Africa to address problems arising from the long-term forced displacement ofpeople.’ (Guidelines for applicants 2012).

• Grants were limited to organisations of between £150,000 to £15 million per year(thus excluding very small NGOs and those with access to multiple sources of funding).

• Annual visits to projects in Africa by BF/JEF staff and Trustees were instituted to promotelearning and annual meetings specifically for international NGO UK grantees wereinaugurated.

• Clear MEL (monitoring, evaluation and learning) plans were to be worked out betweenthe grantee and BF Advisers, at a new inception meeting following the awarding ofthe grant.

The Trustees kept the broad focus on displacement and did not to focus further either bytheme or geography (except for dropping Latin America). Analysis and learning were to beon-going, leading to publications: Filling Gaps and Making Spaces (Twigg, 2005) and Sittingon Chairs (Twigg, 2009), both published by the Baring Foundation.

In 2010 a new element was introduced, a partner meeting in Africa. This was for Africanpartners of UK NGOs, and was to be their space for sharing experiences, learning from eachother and learning more about the UK context of Foundation funding. The Directors andsome Trustees from UK went, primarily to listen and learn. The workshop was facilitated byBF and Akina Mama wa Afrika, a women’s rights organisation in Uganda funded by theFoundations.

The key features of the current approach to grant making

The Director recently highlighted the features he defined as core to the international grantmaking of the Foundation:

• A focus on partnerships and relationship building.• Large grants (up to £250,000) spread over the long-term, normally between 3-5 years.• A 2 stage written application process with short and clear guidelines.• Interviews with staff from UK NGOs and their African partners at the final stage of

applications.• Funding of £1,000 – £2,000 for short listed applicants to attend the interview.• Inception M&E meetings to clarify the purpose of the grant and how it will work in

practice.• Funding a year in advance, paid annually to the UK NGO. Reporting follows the funding

and releases the funds for the following year, again in advance.• Publishing external evaluations – required for every grant – on the BF website.• Annual gatherings for UK grantees.• Visits by staff/Trustees to projects in Africa, with a view to seeing every project once,

funds and security allowing.

The main focus is on capacity building and developing partnerships (good three wayrelationships, between the donor, UK NGO and African partner) within the broad frameworkof addressing the problems created by displacement and forced migration. The approach ischaracterised as ‘flexibility plus clarity of expectations and firm deadlines’. The grant making

13

work is supported by a range of activities such as publications, special events, and funds tosupport new initiatives in international development.

Funding patterns

The Foundations have spent £7m since 2005 in 27 African countries; funding is in bothFrancophone and Anglophone Africa. Many countries receive only 1 grant, with clusters inSouth Sudan (5), Uganda (6), Kenya (3) and Tanzania (3). Some grants were multi countrybut the focus now is on single country grants, of which there are 15 single. In July 2011 nineout of the 38 grants had gone to Diaspora organisations.

The approach to administration is one of ‘proportionality’. BF want to spend enough onadministration to ensure that the NGOs are clear about their roles and responsibilities andfeel supported, but want to keep as much funding as possible for grants to ensure there areadequate funds for work on the ground. Currently the costs of running the programme are,on average, £30k per year for staff and £20k in Advisers’ fees for assessment, monitoringand learning.

14

PHOTO COURTESY OF CHILDREN IN CRISIS

Part 3. Analysis of the key elementsof international developmentgrant making

Introduction

The Baring Foundation follows the common stages of grant making laid out in the diagrambelow. The core principles that guide the way the work is done are:

• The paramount importance of building strong relationships between the funder, the UKNGO and the partner in Africa

• The critical importance of building the skills and capabilities of those delivering the work• The belief that money is the lubricant for development work, the funding is important

but the real challenges and work lie with those on the front line.

This contrasts with other donor approaches that place a higher premium on the value of themoney, accountability to donors, and the importance of systems for tracking the money.While professional levels of financial accountability are certainly expected by the Foundationand met through external audits, the focus is less on efficiency and value for money andmore on identifying and promoting ways of working that build strong organisations andrelationships, and promote positive change for displaced people.

These principles underpin the different stages of grant making:

This section explores the key stages of grant making and the feedback and learning on theseapproaches gathered from the stakeholders contacted for the review.

15

Funding:those that share avision and purpose

Selecting:application and

selection processes

Funding:size, length of time,

accountability

Supporting:contact, attitude to

risk, flexibility

Funding:size, length of time,

accountability

1. Finding grantees:

The criteria used by the Foundation are intended to ensure good, but not too manyapplications:

• a focus on forced displacement of people • a focus on building the capacity of civil society organisations in UK and Africa • a commitment to learning• attention to gender and other vulnerabilities• attention to environmental issues

Grants are up to £250,000 and can be for two to five years of funding. Those taking alonger-term approach are especially welcome, as are applications from Diasporaorganisations.

There were three issues that elicited much discussion and feedback during the interviews.These were the focus of the grants and the related issue of the definition of forceddisplacement, and the commitment to capacity building. (The phrase forced migration anddisplacement has been sued in previous guidelines).

i. The focus on displacement

Donor views

Focus is an issue that exercises many donors. The dominant thinking currently is that a tightfocus means that an organisation can develop specialist skills and knowledge on an issue,enabling them to better select good grantees and learn from the different programmes theyrun. Focus is felt to lead to increased impact.

However, those interviewed held divergent opinions. Some Trustees and staff would like atighter focus for the programme, both to cut the number of applications and to increase thelearning, enabling the Foundation to become known for expertise in a niche area. For others‘the focus is about right’. It is broad and covers a wide array of approaches and thisopenness allows a good number of applications and higher chances of reaching goodorganisations. For them too much focus becomes prescriptive and limits the number ofcandidates; finding the right people to fund is critical.

Perspectives from African grantees

There is a unity of view among the African partners consulted, who were all clear that atight donor focus can curtail them in putting in projects they have developed, often in closecollaboration with local communities and groups. Instead they have to select or ‘cherry pick’the parts of the work that fit the donor criteria, something they are becoming adept in butwhich skews their work. For them the tension between working to tightly set externalcriteria and responding to the needs and demands of the communities they are workingwith is very real; they much prefer funding that supports the local agenda:

Two quotes (from many) illustrate this well:

‘it is good to diversify when working with poverty or women. Focus can narrowopportunities and exclude certain key actors.’

16

‘the focus on displacement meant we had to leave out many schools (in the district).This has been very challenging and led to many tensions.’

It is interesting to note that the issue of who is excluded in a community by the focus of agrant is almost never discussed, something of concern. Emma Crewe argues that all interestand M&E is focused on the participants in a project, with little thought given to thoseexcluded by the programme (personal communication). It is clear from other research(e.g. Wallace and Chapman, 2010) that a tight focus can often over-ride the priorities of themost vulnerable in communities and can lead to divisions, exclusion and jealousies betweenpeople, which may become very counter-productive.

These are issues keenly felt by the NGOs working on the frontline in Africa, where donorconcepts, understanding and priorities may have limited relevance to the lives of the womenand men they are working with.

The UK NGOs

They discussed the issue of focus in a different way, highlighting how the displacement focustook them into new areas of work (and one African respondent raised this too), which theyfelt was positive. For several this was their first grant on post conflict or displacement andthey have enjoyed working with new populations with their partners and learned a lot.

Several noted the importance of the Foundation having a clear focus, well articulated in theguidelines so that agencies don’t waste time applying if their work does not fit. They feltthe guidelines are clear and NGOs can quickly work out whether they are likely to getfunding or not; this is appreciated.

Others felt the definition of forced displacement was unclear when they were applying, butthey looked at previous grants made, who the Trustees and Advisers were and tried to workout what would appeal most to BF! Some benefited from the definitions being used quiteflexibly, while others fall squarely within the arena of forced displacement.

Six UK NGOs talked about focus in the same way as their partners, saying that a tight focusmeans NGOs always have to put their work together in new ways, selecting the bits that willappeal; ‘we have to put the right piece of work together’. This does not always fit well withAfrican partners who often take a more holistic approach: ‘partners are involved in multipleactivities and may find it hard to stay focused as new opportunities arise and issues changein a fast changing context’. ‘Pinning them down’ can be a challenge, especially if projectsappear to them to be very donor led.

One NGO said that ‘too many donors have a strategic focus’ making it hard for localagendas to be funded. She wanted donors to be more open, eclectic and keep the focus onfunding strong partnerships and working according to clear principles. Another said,‘the more freedom you give the better’ allowing grants to be ‘locally led’ and responsive.If you focus hard ‘you get proposals telling you what you want to hear’ and not necessarilywhat is needed. There is a real concern around donor driven agendas over-riding agendas ofstaff and communities on the ground.

The feedback showed some of the dilemmas for NGOs, who are in real need of funds fortheir work, and highlighted some of the dangers for donors of setting too tight agendas fortheir funding.

17

ii. The meaning of displacement

This was an issue touched upon in several interviews. The history of the grant making in BFshows that while there are strong, agreed parameters to the way the issues around forceddisplacement are defined, in practice these are applied somewhat differently over time,allowing Trustees to select good projects that might be seen as borderline in relation to thestrict definitions. While this means the range of grants widens further, raising concernsabout how to compare and learn from them, it also means that the projects identified as thebest by Trustees were included for funding, something some Trustees value greatly.

For the NGOs that receive grants, even though they lie on the edges of what forceddisplacement means, this is a good approach. For some NGOs who do not apply, becausethey feel they fall outside the definitions, this flexibility creates uncertainty and lack ofclarity about their (and BF) understanding of displacement.

iii. Capacity building

A commitment to building civil society is core. There are, however, different views amongTrustees about the balance to be made between funding capacity building and funding theproject work that more directly or quickly leads to development results. For a minority,development results are paramount and capacity building should not become ‘an end initself’. For others, the belief that building strong organisations and communities, able towork independently and accountably, is core to ensuring long-term development. They arewilling to invest in this in the expectation of sustainable changes for the displaced,recognising that these may sometimes take longer to come than the 3-5 year grant period.

The feedback from UK NGOs

For most of those interviewed the money for capacity building, both in UK and Africa, wascritical and highly valued. Eleven of the UK organisations interviewed emphasised theimportance of this funding.

However, because the dominant donor focus is on achieving measurable results and moneyfor core costs and organisational development is difficult to raise, they appear wary ofasking for too much for this work. Some have not taken full advantage of the BF offer tofund core costs to develop the capabilities of staff, for fear of coming across as not ‘up tothe job’. A few were wary, wondering if this was ‘a trick’ issue in the application.

The majority of UK NGOs have included some capacity building costs for activities in Africaand to a lesser extent in UK. A few examples illustrate the use of these funds and theirvalue. One UK organisation stressed the need to understand how organisations develop andcan take on more sophisticated and complex work. They want to support them to movefrom the early stages to being able to manage relationships with many partners – theGovernment, the private sector and the community, and including women in the community.Institution building in their experience takes four or five years and someone has to do thiswork to build up strong partners in Africa, able to manage and effectively use substantialfunds to achieve real changes for displaced people. The stage of each partner organisationneeds to be assessed and the capabilities, systems and support they need identified, toenable them to move to the next stage. They work with several partners from communityorganisations through to national NGOs and all need to be able to work effectively,separately and together, to achieve their aims.

18

One UK NGO working with a new community organisation stressed the massive impact largeincome flows can have on those unused to handling large grants, and the critical importanceof working painstakingly with new staff and volunteers to understand budgets, managefunds and develop the skills needed to run good projects. Building relationships with thecommunity organisation, the local NGO and the UK NGO is critical to ensuring the projectworks; this takes time as well as money. Understanding the cultural pressures on the funds,finding ways to talk honestly about challenges and identify appropriate solutions, areessential prerequisites for delivering good results.

A Diaspora organisation working with a new community based women’s organisationstressed the importance of working with them on developing appropriate systems, policiesand procedures for the organisation. They also had to learn how to work with their mainlyvolunteer workers in the new context of external funding, which changes the dynamicsbetween those who now get paid and those who do not.

Many of the grantees in UK work with emerging community based organisations, in turnworking closely with their communities and responding to strongly felt needs. Many lackclear organisational structures and systems and to develop these in a meaningful wayrequires time and money. They need skills ranging from financial management to genderanalysis, reporting through to how to work with those with HIV. Systems need to beunderstood and appropriate and people need time to learn new ways of working; fundingthese processes ‘is essential to building civil society’ in Africa. There are risks in working withemerging organisations but the capacity building grant allows them to take those risks andfund organisational development, which most see as central to long-term developmentin Africa.

Several UK NGOs working with more established NGOs in Africa talked of the way thesefunds enable them to pay staff and train them, a time consuming but essential process.Those that invest in staff in Africa find their staff turnover is lower and the quality of theirwork improves as they become more experienced and trained. They are loyal to theorganisation and develop real expertise in their field of work.

The feedback from African partners

Not all the partners interviewed knew they could apply for funds solely for capacitybuilding, which was surprising. Two organisations said they needed more funding fororganisational development with their community partners, because building up theseorganisations is slow and at times difficult. One wanted more funds for developing theirown NGO. They had assumed they could get all the technical support they needed from theUK partner but discovered they needed more locally based, hands-on specialist support toenable them to work well in fast changing and challenging contexts.

One NGO was very forthright. They said core costs are essential for building and retaininggood staff, but they often ‘hide them’ in their proposals believing that most donors want tofund project work and not staff costs. They work in a complex area where specialist skills areneeded to deliver good quality services to displaced children, and recruiting staff, trainingand supporting them are central to achieving good results, which they do.Without motivated and skilled staff they cannot build relationships with children, familiesor the many community based partners they work with to meet the multiple and complexneeds of the children.

19

PHOTO, COURTESY OF AFRIKIDS

20

21

Another talked of the critical importance of ‘building a sustainable organisation to stand onour own feet’. More money is needed for this, especially given the high expectations donorshave of what local organisations can and should deliver.

The external observers all stressed the importance of building good relationships, buildingessential skills and ensuring NGOs and CBOs have the tools to do the job they haveidentified as critical for their (displaced) communities.

2. Selecting grantees

The Baring Foundation asks for clear, jargon free applications showing the need;organisational track record; and a realistic plan with clear objectives, which promotesgenuine partnerships, which in turn offer the prospect of enduring improvement.

Applicants are asked to take gender issues and vulnerability into account, as well as theenvironmental impact issues relating to their work, and ensure beneficiaries share in theirdecision-making, can do good M&E and have strong financial systems.

There is a clear timetable, from December when the guidelines are issued to October whendecisions are made. There is a two stage process plus an interview with the UK NGO andtheir African partner for shortlisted candidates.

Applicants are welcome to have discussions with the Director about issues arising fromthe guidelines.

Two issues attracted plentiful feedback from grantees, the application guidelines and theinterview process. A few felt that the time taken from application to decision-making wastoo long, but others said they plan for this and can work with the existing timetable.

i. Application guidelines

The majority of UK NGOs found the application form straightforward: the format is shortand easy, they appreciate the lack of jargon and the focus on first principles around theproposed work. It encourages clear thinking and an open way of presenting the work in itsown terms. People appreciate the two-stage proposal, starting with a short concept note, apractice widely used by donors now.

Two NGOs said that there is a lack of clarity about exactly what BF would like to know andfelt more specificity could make it easier to do the application. NGOs spend a huge amountof time on applications and meeting donor requirements and clearly some would prefer alittle more structure. Some include and follow a log frame format even though this is notrequested. Given the time NGOs spend on developing these it may save their time to usethem rather than trying to explain their proposal in brief, narrative form. However, it is nota format that helps Trustees understand exactly what is being proposed and it does not fitthe BF approach well. It tends to contain much development jargon, rather than a clearstatement of the work in plain English.

The African NGOs who talked about the application stressed how much time proposaldevelopment takes and noted there is no funding for this work. It takes much of theirattention. They find the BF guidelines ‘easy’ and ‘user friendly’; their challenge is always tofit the aspirations of the people they work with into donor priorities. One partner said the

word length was too short; ‘the application is simple but space is too limited in the fullproposal for explaining everything. We have to abbreviate to meet the lengthrequirements.’

Many partners are working in situations where there are few services and resourcesavailable and they take a holistic approach to working with communities, something that isseen in the UK to be overly-ambitious. Cutting back can be problematic for those who seethe complex and inter-related needs on a daily basis, and it is something communities do notreally understand, seeing they have needs for e.g. education, health, skills, markets, access todecision-making and their rights.

ii. The interview at second stage

The face-to-face interview is a significant feature of the BF process and one highlyappreciated by all the grantees and Trustees interviewed. It is seen as a way to start to builda relationship with the grantees; NGO staff meet the Trustees and can put their case inperson; Trustees can put faces to names and see the quality and nature of the relationshipbetween the UK and African partners. It is a time for open questions and debate that ismuch appreciated.

It is also appreciated that unsuccessful NGOs that attend receive £2000 towards the costs ifan African partner attends and £1000 otherwise, making people feel they can afford toprepare for the interview and attend without incurring major costs. A few quotes (of many)illustrate the value this process overall has:

‘I had the opportunity to express myself, very different to writing. It gives a humanside to donor support’ (African partner)

‘It was a luxury to talk about our programme’ (UK NGO)

‘A phenomenal experience’ (African partner)

‘It was great, surprising, unique’ (African partner)

‘It was very friendly, not a tug of war…helped to build our capacity by explainingmore about the proposal and answering detailed questions’ (African partner).

‘It allowed the staff in Africa to take responsibility for the discussion and make theircontribution. This makes them proud and they feel ownership and moreresponsibility’. (Diaspora organisation)

It is a pivotal moment in the selection process bringing many benefits, not least partners feellistened to and respected.

However, a few critical issues were raised:

• As some African applicants noted, there are still many other costs associated withcoming for an interview, especially in relation to time lost at work.

• The time for the interview is very short, less than an hour, and asking people from Africato speak for such a short time is difficult and culturally challenging.

• Given the distances people have travelled some would like more contact (beyond theinterview) with the Advisers to discuss their work in more detail and get more feedback.

22

• There is a danger of those who are good at presentations and are most charismaticsucceeding over those doing good work but less familiar with a formal interviewenvironment in UK.

• Visas are a real problem for some staff, especially from some countries.• Many African staff said they were very nervous and did not know what to expect.

While the interview was in fact very friendly more information about the format andexpectations beforehand would have helped them.

• Many were unsure who was making the final decisions and would like to haveunderstood the role of Trustees and Advisers better.

3. Funding

Funding is usually given for the full amount requested; partial funding is only awardedunder specific circumstances because experience shows how hard it is for many NGOs tosuccessfully adapt projects to the funding given or raise co-funding. It is long term, usuallyfrom 3-5 years, and paid annually in advance. The annual report follows the funding andtriggers the following year’s allocation.

There is flexibility to change budget lines and reallocate funds as the project evolves anddelays or changes occur but these need to be communicated to the Foundation and agreed.The approach is one of openness to change and flexibility, because ‘I have never known aproject work to plan’ (Director).

Accountability for funding is included in the annual report along with the narrative report.The procedures are ‘light touch’ given the role of the UK NGO in keeping good accounts andthe auditors in UK and Africa in monitoring the financial systems and accounts. The conceptof proportionality is used here, balancing the time spent on grant administration andgetting financial assurance with the commitment to spend as much as possible on the grantsand not administration.

The characteristics of this approach to funding most appreciated were:

• Multi-year funding, a practice found among several larger funders.• The flexibility about changing the use of funds when the context or circumstances

change (especially for example when there are delays in setting up the project in year 1).This allows room for learning.

• For UK NGOs getting the funds in advance makes their life easier, especially for thesmaller organisations.

• The ability to discuss and negotiate around funding is seen as ‘an enlightened approach’.• There is a relationship around funding; it is not simply about rules and compliance.

This matters because development ‘is not cut and dried’.• Many said that getting funding from the Foundations ‘is difficult’ but once you get it,

it opens doors and enables them to raise funds from other donors. The Foundations’funding often leverages more funding.

People felt there was a starting point of trust and encouragement rather than distrust andsuspicion. There is openness and an understanding of the realities of working in some of themost disadvantaged communities and often remote areas of Africa, where things rarely goaccording to plan.

Again a minority had concerns about the lack of guidance and structure for the financialreporting and some of the less experienced agencies would find more support around

23

24

financial reporting useful. They want to learn how best to present their financial data andwhat is most important for the Foundations. Few re-grant to their African partners a year inadvance, but some UK NGOs re-grant flexibly depending on the context and the degree ofexperience in each organisation they fund. Others re-grant the funds using their normalprocedures, which may be monthly or quarterly disbursements. They can all pay in advance,however, something much appreciated by partners.

The quality of financial reporting does vary and this is an area that is challenging for someNGOs, especially when they receive co-funding or where organisations are relatively newand inexperienced.

4. Supporting

During the period of implementation the Foundation provides a range of support tograntees. This includes encouraging them to discuss issues arising from their work, bothpositive and negative, and sharing successes and failures. Openness to discussing challengesas they arise and to working with the NGO concerned to solve the problems that have arisenis encouraged by BF.

There is a commitment to making decisions about changes that need to be made to thework very quickly, usually within a few days.

In addition, there are a number of meetings that bring grantees together with theFoundation staff and/or Trustees each year, including an inception meeting following theawarding of a grant; visits to projects in Africa by the Directors, Trustees and sometimes anAdviser; an annual meeting of UK grantees in London; and the meeting for partners inAfrica in 2010.

It is perhaps especially in the area of direct support that Foundations are in a position towork closely with their grantees; to build relationships, get to know them and understandtheir challenges, and develop a partnership with them that can, at times, enable jointproblem solving. There is real scope for investing in these relationships, but this has to betempered with the costs involved. The lack of a large bureaucracy allows for closeness tograntees, quick decision-making and immediate responses to questions and requests.

This support is highly appreciated and was seen as critical to positive grant making byevery interviewee.

i. Direct support for partnership and relationship building

Views from Africa

Several respondents said there is a recognition within the Baring Foundation that partnersdo the work with the communities and need to work at their own pace; they need a long-term presence and support. Long-term funds are important for building partnerships andBF’s understanding that tangibles can, in certain projects, take eight to ten years to berealized is really valued:

‘Change is long-term. You can’t get fast meaningful change in complex contexts’.

‘It is hard for donors or even UK NGOs to know the ground. The importance ofinteracting to understand what is happening [cannot be underestimated]’.

Those interviewed in Africa felt that the Foundation did value the local partners and wanteda relationship with them. BF also wanted to meet and listen to the community on their visits;one respondent summed up the feeling expressed by several people, ’this was one of thepartnerships I enjoyed. It was different, flexible, personal and with quick responses’.

There are several opportunities in the grant making process for Trustees and staff to interactdirectly with local partners and sometimes with the communities they work with and this isseen by those in Africa as a significant and positive component of grant making.

UK NGOs

NGOs in the UK also identified the importance of engagement with the donor to ensureclarity on the roles and responsibilities of all three sets of players, donors, UK NGOs and localNGOs. The direct relationship with the Foundation does promote some close relationships,which are being eroded in other donor contexts by the outsourcing and contracting out ofgrant making. Outsourcing usually requires tight compliance to contract rules and allowslittle room for the kind of interaction and flexibility that many NGOs in the UK find helpful.

Several of the UK NGOs do have strong relationships with their local partners and feel thatthe Foundation understands that and supports them, especially in a crisis. Several of thegrantees have experienced major challenges including illness, car accidents, violence, anddelays caused by very adverse local conditions. They feel able to share these experienceswith the Foundation, because they feel they can trust them. This is, according to thoseinterviewed, not the case with all grant makers where they can feel pressured to say thework is going according to plan to ‘please the donors’ and to ‘say that what has beenpromised has been delivered’. Varying budgets, timelines and expectations is difficult intight results based frameworks, yet the unpredictable often turns plans upside-down.Being able to share these challenges and discuss ways forward with a donor is refreshing.

Diaspora organisations have a different dynamic, being driven from the South, and the roleof their NGOs in the UK is to service and support the organisation based in Africa.Different sized organisations and different organisational structures require different needsand support and no one size fits all. The more grant making can work with the needs andrealities of each organization, the more appropriate it feels to those involved; this kind ofapproach works well when there is direct contact between the grant maker and therecipient. Face to face discussions allow for flexibility in a way paper-based proceduresdo not:

‘What I like about the Baring Foundation is you can tell them the truth and theydon’t mind’.

‘We do not have to be economical with the truth, staff are accessible and not fearfulof change. The focus is on support and seeing how to ensure the work gets done’.

Within this broad ‘agenda of support’ respondents (UK and Southern NGOs) highlighted thefollowing areas:

• Inception meetings• Gender work• Annual meeting in UK• Visits• African partners’ meeting

25

26

ii. Inception meetings

These are held between Advisers and the UK NGO soon after the grant is awarded,recognising that writing a proposal for securing funding is not the same as working out howto implement, monitor and evaluate the work once the money has been given.Funding proposals are often overambitious, budgets may not tightly link to the plans, andsome of the assumptions underlying the project may need further examination. It is criticalto revisit the proposal in a relaxed, supportive atmosphere, to question further, to challengeand to explore what is realistic and how the work will actually be delivered.

This is a time for further analysis, which several of the African partners said they would liketo have been able to participate in when they came for the interview. The feedback fromthe UK NGOs was that the inputs are valued; sometimes they are challenging but they arealso encouraging. Gaps are identified, operating problems discussed, skills developmentexplored. People appreciate the fact that the Advisers understand the contexts in which theywork and have development experience to draw on. They especially appreciate the time tostop, stand back and think through with someone else how the work will actually bedelivered, what is feasible and what some of the challenges might be. Few donors provide asafe space for such discussions.

One or two found the experience quite difficult because there were real question marksaround aspects of the way they planned to do the work. However, the dialogue continuedthroughout the programme and this meant that when difficulties were encountered theNGO knew there was an understanding of the work and they could openly share problemswith BF.

iii. Gender

There are of course times when introducing new ideas and challenging existing ways ofworking is needed; one area where this has been needed with some grantees and partners iswork on gender inequality. Many NGOs are grappling with how to address these issueswithin their own organisations and within the programmes.

While the Baring Foundation places emphasis on addressing marginalisation and inequality,especially but not only those relating to gender, many grantees say they find this area ofwork demanding. Several accepted they need to do more work and appreciated the factthat the Foundation challenges and encourages them but does not impose ideas. It is goodfor them to be pushed to debate the issues, they say, because gender analysis is still weak inmany programmes and not fully understood as fundamental to achieving programmeeffectiveness. Even some agencies working directly with women and girls do not undertakea gender and power analysis so their work risks being undermined by those in thecommunity hostile to concepts of women and girls’ empowerment.

While several of those interviewed in Africa and UK know their gender work needs toimprove they appreciate not being set ‘ambitious targets and short timeframes’. It is an areawhere some NGOs said they would appreciate more advice and support.

iv. The annual UK meeting for NGOs

This meeting hosted by BF provides a welcome opportunity for the UK NGOs to gettogether, to discuss and to learn from each other and to meet face-to-face with staff andTrustees. It builds the relationships and makes them ‘feel valued in partnership’.

The meetings have an informality, which provides space to meet and share, listen and learn.However, several of the better established NGOs meet together in several forums and feltthat these meetings could be used more systematically to help them learn from each otherand from the Foundation in a deeper way. Some said they could be better prepared; it was avaluable space that the Foundation could use more effectively.

There was also concern expressed about how to share the learning that emerged with thepartners in Africa. While some agencies do send their own report to their partners, ways ofsharing this experience more widely could be explored, especially using goodcommunication technology.

v. Visits

All the NGOs in the UK and in Africa who had experienced visits found them extremelyuseful. They appreciate the way in which the staff and Trustees approach the visits, openlywishing to learn. These visits are not about checking but about talking to front line staff,meeting beneficiaries, increasing understanding of the context, and building relationships.Many see these visits as ‘so important to understanding’, especially of the Trustees who havebusy lives and only limited time to engage with the realities of these grants. NGO staff andbeneficiaries found the Trustees ‘down to earth and ready to listen’.

Several felt that it was because of the visits that the Foundation was able to respond quicklyand positively to problems as they arose within the projects.

Some African respondents warned about the dangers of assuming that partners are properlyrepresenting communities in the current funding climate. They said that as some donorspush the concepts of business plans and NGOs start to work as businesses they fear thatsome local NGOs are responding strongly to donor driven agendas and undermining theirlocal networks and relationships. Relying on written reports about what is happening is notenough and visits to see that NGOs are actively engaging with their communities, especiallywomen and others whose voices are often not heard, are a critical component of grantoversight.

African respondents also said, ‘that it made people feel supported’; visits were of real valueto people working in difficult contexts. One concern expressed, however, was that becauseof language problems and some security issues no visits have been made to FrancophoneAfrica, yet they work in some of the most difficult contexts and would receive a real boostand benefits from a visit.

vi. The African partners’ meeting

The first African partners’ meeting to take place in Africa was held in November 2010 inUganda and brought together three staff from each of the African NGOs currently receivinga grant. Some Trustees and staff from the Baring and John Ellerman Foundations attended;no UK NGOs staff did. This was a cause of concern to some before the meeting but after themeeting the feedback from the UK NGOs was that it was good that they were not there andthat the focus was very much on the African partners, who were able to meet face-to-facewith each other and their donors. While a broad outline programme was set by a steeringgroup in the UK, the agenda for each day was handed to one African partner, who workedwith others to design the content and methodology for each day; it was ‘their space’ todiscuss their priorities in ways they felt comfortable with.

27

28

Some of the key features of the four-day workshop were:

• A strong focus on the work but also on the social activities to ensure people could meet,make friends, discuss, and relax together.

• A broad framework for the workshop with the detailed content of each day delegatedto participants who together decided how to run the day.

• There was no UK agenda for this meeting, the purpose was to provide a positive spacefor people to come together, share their experiences and learn from each other, ‘it wasour space’.

• It worked in both English and French and encouraged a wide range of methodologiesand formats to be used. There were presentations, focus groups, debates, panels,singing, role-play and more.

• Some outside speakers from Uganda were invited in to build skills and knowledgearound issues such as the use of drama in development, participatory methods forworking with children, and new environmentally friendly technologies for poor people.

About 40 people gathered together in a hotel overlooking Lake Victoria and over 4 days hada shared experience that was important to all who attended. The feedback from theworkshop is to be found on The Baring Foundation website.

This review was carried out over a year later. The feedback continues to be positive: for theUK NGOs they saw it built the confidence of African partners and inspired many of them.The staff got involved and it gave them a chance ‘to stand in front’. It was a wonderfulopportunity for them to talk to the donors direct, to ‘hear from the horses mouth’, and tounderstand better the funding environment in the UK. They connected to other grantees,felt ‘their eyes were opened’ and some UK NGOs report receiving better reports on theprogrammes following the workshop.

Given the initial anxieties about the UK NGOs being omitted from the meeting, it is clearthat they now support the idea of providing partners with their own space to think, share,discuss, and learn.

PHOTO OF AFRICAN PARTNERS MEETING, COURTESY OF THE JOHN ELLERMAN FOUNDATION

29

For those interviewed in Africa the workshop was ‘very bold and rich’. Another said it wasvery encouraging; they learnt a lot and were able to benchmark their work against the workof others. The networks that were created have continued and many remain in touch.They built relationships and ‘travelled on a journey together’. It helped some of them tothink more deeply about ‘what change are we looking for’. ‘It was a fantastic andwonderful experience’ and a rare one, a real opportunity.

The main concerns raised were about time; many participants felt they needed more time topresent their work, do joint analysis on what people thought they were approaching welland where they had questions, and for getting feedback and comments from the otherparticipants. They often felt rushed and culturally some speakers found it hard to be forcedinto short time slots. Many of the participants come from the marginalised, displacedcommunities, many are activists as well as NGO staff and what they were talking aboutencompassed their whole lives; several found it difficult to be so constrained in the timethey had to discuss their ideas and their work. A few were upset because they felt theirstories had been cut off mid-stream, because of a tight focus on ‘keeping to time’ by theorganizers.

5. Monitoring and evaluation, reporting and learning

The approach of the Baring Foundation is that an external evaluation is compulsory andthey request that 5% of the overall budget is allocated to this. Narrative and financialreporting is done annually through an annual report, which has to be read and assessedbefore the following year’s funding can be released. NGOs get feedback on their annualreports and they can have feedback on the evaluation process and content as well.

This is perhaps the most challenging area of work for NGOs and has been for decades.Many books and papers have been written, tools trialed, many approaches tried and it is aconstantly evolving field. Fashions change and in recent years there has been a swing awayfrom participatory methodologies to quantitative approaches and a demand for scientificrigour. NGO bookshelves are full of M&E, reporting and learning manuals, yet this is an areaof continued concern for donors and NGOs in both the UK and Africa.

i. Reporting

UK NGO feedback

There were many positive comments about the short reporting guidelines and the narrativeapproach to reporting taken by the Foundation:

• The reporting is flexible, the demands are clear and ‘we receive fast feedback’.• The dates for all reports are clear, known in advance and reminders sent, which is much

appreciated.• The guidelines are light, and ‘about right’. They require narrative reporting and not

boxes or tight reporting against targets. • People feel this spirit of reporting is one of learning and support, not compliance and

confrontation. This is important because development is ‘messy and needs flexibility’.• There is a sense that the Foundation genuinely wants to learn from reports, ‘the good,

the bad and the ugly’.• The advisers and Director engage closely with reports.• Feedback from partners about changes is accepted; this is important because changes in

30

attitudes, knowledge and skills – within organisations or the communities – are often‘hard to prove’ or quantify.

Several concerns were raised though. This reporting is different to that required by otherdonors, it requires different skills and it takes time. NGOs already spend so much time onreporting this can be a real burden. The space allowed for reports is limited and that makesit hard to cover some of the richness and complexity of the work. For less experienced NGOsa little more guidance would help them to understand exactly what the Foundation wantsto know, especially around financial reporting and some NGOs felt that the guidelines couldbe a little more demanding and push the NGOs to be more analytical.

African feedback

The respondents in Africa shared many of the same ideas and experiences. They werepositive overall about the guidelines and style of reporting. Some, however, have to doquarterly or even monthly reporting to the UK NGO and so do not directly reap the benefitsof only reporting once a year. Many felt this regular reporting helps them to keep track oftheir work.

Several concerns were raised though:

• There is a lack of funding to support reporting. Several felt they needed ‘help to fulfillthe reporting requirements of the donors’, and this was a very neglected area.

• People would like more training on analysis as well as reporting.• For some the financial reporting is difficult because they work with a mixture of work in

kind as well as finance. It is hard to separate out activities against a specific grant andonly account for that money

• There are challenges in reporting when there is co-funding. • It is important to recognise that when you work with more than one community some

may speed ahead while in others ‘leaders are limping’ and progress is slow.This diversity can be hard to report on effectively in a short report.

• ‘There is limited space in the guidelines for stories of success.’• Some new NGOs find it hard to be sure what it is that the donors want to know about.

It is not always clear to them that this reporting should be of use to them for learningand improving their programmes.

• More than one said that the reporting looks very straightforward but they lackconfidence about what is really wanted, and ‘look for the trap’. It takes them time torealise that the BF reporting is quite straightforward.

ii. Learning around implementation

BF takes a problem-solving approach to dealing with unexpected problems, something NGOstaff appreciate once they really understand it. BF knows from experience how differentimplementation can be from the original plans, for a wide range of reasons.

One very common problem is how long it takes a programme to start once the money isreleased; most programmes are delayed in year one. Different projects come up againstdifferent challenges including loss of key staff who have been difficult to quickly replace;realising the project is too ambitious, finding ways to scale back and agreeing a differentapproach with everyone involved; the mapping and baselines promised are often slow andmore expensive than expected; and issues like land slides, rain, fuel shortages can delay thework for months sometimes.

31

For some NGOs bigger problems present themselves during project implementationincluding financial mismanagement, organisational crises (in Africa or UK), car accidents,delays in decisions around test cases, and for one NGO the tragedy of a massacre of sevenstaff. For many the situations in which they work can be demoralising and extremelydifficult, something difficult to capture in reports.

iii. Evaluations

Over time the Director has seen that the greatest benefit from the external evaluation is forthose who are actually doing the work. Evaluations especially provide an opportunity forstaff to interact with an external adviser, to revisit their work with a critical eye, to getfeedback from their participants and beneficiaries, and to have some time to reflect on whathas worked well and what has not. It needs to be a real learning experience in which staffand communities are involved so that they can improve future work.

The evaluation is not seen as an audit or a tool for compliance but one for reflection andlearning. It is expected to document:

• What happened • How the project has changed in the light of experience and changing context• What was done and what was valued by the staff and the communities involved• What worked well and why, and what did not work so well• What is happening or changing as a result of the work to date – within the

organisations, the partnership and the communities

This approach is similar to that recently promoted by New Philanthropy Capital(Hedley, S. et al 2010). The evaluations, once finalised, are published on the BaringFoundation website and many show strong evidence of multiple achievements, the reality ofthe challenges faced, learning from experience and flexibility in managing the unexpected.

The UK NGO and their partners are encouraged to develop the initial terms of reference andan Adviser gives feedback; it is a collaborative process. The external evaluators are chosen bythe NGOs but the Baring Foundation sees the CVs. This joint approach is advocated in arecent study funded by several Foundations called ‘Assessing the impact of multi-purposecommunity organisations’ (IVAR with NPC, 2011), which laid out several principles:

1. Impact assessment needs a clear rationale and purpose.

2. It needs to be jointly understood and designed by organisations and their funders toensure it meets the needs of all parties.

3. Dialogue matters to develop a shared understanding of the work.

4. Context matters and evaluations need to use a variety of methods.

5. Collaboration is at the heart of impact assessment, which needs to be rooted in the wayeach organisation works.

6. Organisations should be free to tell a story of contribution not attribution.3

3 http://www.ivar.org.uk/publications/reports-and-publications/assessing-impact-multi-purpose-community-organisations June 2011, p2.

32

This approach differs from much current monitoring and evaluation work, which is based onmeasuring indicators against the plan laid out in a logic model accompanied by a resultsbased framework. Feedback from both UK and African NGOs supported this approach.The positive feedback on external evaluations was:

• ‘It is good that money is provided for external evaluations’• The focus on learning is appreciated• The joint development of Terms of Reference is a good innovation• Publishing them on the website is good for transparency but does it feel daunting for

some NGOs; does this affect the ability to be really open?• They are a good learning tool as well as a tool for promoting the work and future

fundraising

The concerns raised were:

• The costs of good local evaluators are much higher than many expect and the evaluationbudget is often too small to secure good people

• Are there benefits to using a pool of known evaluators? Or is it best to use local peopleand support the development of local evaluators?

• Many evaluators know how to do evaluations against a log frame but find the moreopen ended, qualitative approach a challenge

• Some evaluations do not do justice to the work achieved

PHOTO COURTESY OF HOMELESS INTERNATIONAL

Part 4. Organisational issues for BF/JEFand some other Foundations

The role of Trustees

The role of Trustees in the Foundations is to take the final decisions on who will receivegrants. The Trustees are responsible for the way money is spent and are clear that while theyrely on advice from the Advisers and the Director the ultimate decisions about grantees aremade by the Trustees. Those Trustees interviewed see this as essential for good governance.

This is an issue not well understood by some grantees, who did not have a clearunderstanding of roles and responsibilities of the Directors of the two foundations, theAdvisers and the Trustees. This is an area where better information would help grantees,especially from Africa, to understand how decisions are made, which is important at theinterview stage.

The role of Advisers

The Advisers are expected to provide information to the Director and Trustees on the qualityof applications, on the learning from annual reports ensuring they meet minimum standardsof grant accountability and learning, and supporting the external evaluation process.They also provide direct contact to grantees that want to talk through challenges orproblems or seek advice, although they can always go straight to the Director who has anopen door policy with grantees.

There was a range of views about the role of Advisers. Some NGOs felt it was high risk tooutsource the appraisal and learning processes to people who were not staff. They felt therewas a risk that the Foundation would lose knowledge using external Advisers, even thoughthe Advisers work long-term with the organisation.

Those interviewed in the UK felt that the Advisers are accessible, challenging and give goodfeedback. Their approach is not trying ‘to see whether you have gone wrong’ but rather toanalyse how the work is conceptualised, how to think through the realities ofimplementation and of the budget, to discuss problems and the need for change as theyarise, and to support learning. It is good to have somebody asking questions from asupportive point of view. A few felt the Adviser put pressure on them but that goodrelationships were built up during the three to four years of the project, and there wasmutual learning. Overall they do provide support, much appreciated from a donor.

33

34

Some grantees from Africa said they would like more interaction with the advisers,especially when they come to the UK for the interview. They feel they would benefit fromthe same kind of conversations and it is hard for them to get access to this kind ofindependent advice and support.

This feedback chimes with the findings in the recent ‘Beyond money’ report (IVAR, 2011),which stressed to donors that:

• Everybody likes to be valued and taken seriously• Personal skills and personal relationships are key to success for interventions• Everybody finds it hard to have their work interfered with or critiqued• Different organisations require different kinds of support

Coalition with BF and JEF

The feedback from Trustees and the few NGOs who commented on the relationshipsbetween BF and JEF was positive. The benefits are increasing the size of the fund withoutincreasing the paperwork; one application serves both Foundations. While differentFoundations have differences in philosophy the grantees did not experience any tensions intheir dealings with the two Foundations at the interviews, and the Trustees feel these areeasily manageable with good will and good chairing. The selection process and criteriabroadly satisfied the Trustees interviewed; after that the BF manages the day-to-day runningof the grants.

The relationship will continue until 2013, after which all aspects of the grant will bereviewed, something the Nuffield Foundation did quite recently. In that case they decided toform different kinds of coalitions with like-minded agencies that have a shared vision inorder to fund sizeable grants on clearly defined areas of work. This can have a powerfulimpact, building a community of donors focused on the same partners, sharing approaches,

MOTIVATION TRAINING IN UGANDA, PHOTO COURTESY OF THE JOHN ELLERMAN FOUNDATION

learning and advocacy work. They each work with different partners around the strategicissues, ensuring the unified purpose is clear.

This area of donor collaboration, while often discussed in the literature, remains one that isrelatively under-explored, yet has many potential benefits.

‘Funding plus’

The approach taken by the Foundation to the work is sometimes termed ‘Funding Plus’,which means working in several complementary ways to address the problems of forcedmigration. In the ‘Beyond money’ report ‘funding plus’ includes training workshops, specialinitiatives, external evaluations and research, dissemination, technical assistance, conveningand influencing. While they see some dangers in this approach – such as taking time awayfrom grant making and the need for good diverse skills – many benefits are identified.These include the recognition that money alone will not achieve the desired results and theimportance of ensuring that those who are funded have the capacity and means to performwell. ‘Funding plus’ also helps with developing trust and more honest relationships.

‘Funding plus’ succeeds when there are:

• Strong personal relationships• Good knowledge of grantees and the sector in which they operate• Grantees that are ready and willing for an engaged relationship with the funder • Bespoke rather than standardised or prescriptive approaches • A careful and responsible management of power relations between funder and grantee

This is the overall approach the Baring Foundation takes to support the internationalprogramme and the work includes:

• Support to grantees (discussed in detail above)• Special initiatives: for example, funding for three roundtables on issues around

international development at Wilton Park, convening several Diaspora round tables• Funding the Diaspora advocacy work under the Common Ground programme funded by

DFID at Comic Relief • Funding a Charity Commission pilot project in South Africa working on developing an

enabling and clear regulatory framework for the NGO sector there• Adding value to the grant making through publications based on internal learning:

e.g. Sitting on Chairs and Filling Gaps and Making Spaces• Collaborating with other grant makers to support research and publications on the

sector: e.g. Going Global and Global Grant-making• Networking: e.g. through the Association of Charitable Foundations

Some of this work is tied to the grant making and some is quite separate. Most granteeswere unaware of many aspects of BF support to the problems of displacement and somegrantees asked what role the Baring Foundation could be playing in influencing theinternational development sector in the UK. This wider influencing role is not currentlyknown to most of them. This is an area where more communication and joint work coulddeepen the grantee-donor partnerships to build some of the joint policy/influencing morefirmly on the programme work. Some UK NGOs felt this would be important given the highprofile of the Foundation and their relatively small size and ‘small voice’. Better co-ordination of activities and communication about them could lead to new ways of workingtogether beyond the grants.

35

Part 5. Learning about grant makingfrom the review and key principlesidentified

Key concerns around grant making raised during this review

The following recurring themes emerging from the review process highlighted real concernsabout trends in aid funding and how much grant making is done. These concerns echo thoseto be found in the literature referred to earlier in this report, especially around autonomyand the balance between listening to and complying with donors and allowing needs ofcommunities and local organisations to drive agendas.

1. There is a lot of fear/anxiety evident in the sector in relation to high donor demandsaround grant making.

2. There are high levels of anxiety around grant seeking because of the intense competitionfor funds and the high expectations based on target setting.

3. The growing reliance on paperwork and complex documentation appears to be replacingthe need for good relationships and spaces for negotiation and shared problem solving.

4. The high costs of completing applications involving extensive paperwork, and growingmonitoring and evaluation demands are not covered by the grants given.

5. The very limited availability of funds for skills building and covering core costs atall levels.

6. The rush for demonstrable results in the short term, using quantitative methods (notuseful in some contexts) is often not realistic.

7. The ‘diminishment of staff’ as reliance on fixed paper-based plans and evidence replaceconfidence in their judgment; they are increasingly working within narrow bureaucraticconstraints. One person in the Foundations referred to this as ‘shrinking and not growingof people in the sector’, meaning that essential skills for development such as initiative,understanding of context, ability to work well with people were being squeezed out byrigid systems approaches.

8. The multiple and contradictory formats, tools, focus, and the ever-changing ideas comingfrom different donor organisations making it difficult for partners in Africa to

36

understand or to work with these changes. Local staff feel they get little support todevelop their skills, and they need many as development work is complex anddemanding, while demands from the donors increasingly take time and attention awayfrom the work at the local level.

Positive issues that support NGOs in their development work;some key principles

The Trustees, grantees and partners and external observers provided many ideas andexperiences that highlighted positive ways to fund work with NGOs in displacement inAfrica. The following principles are drawn directly from this review and are supported byevidence from several recent UK studies cited earlier. This strengthens the findings, whichappear widely applicable to funding from those Trusts and Foundations working to maintainand build an independent civil society capable of supporting marginalised anddisadvantaged people.

These are:

1. The importance of face-to-face contact, respect, and building mutual relationships.People are key to enabling and promoting transformative change; working well togetherand promoting real partnerships at all levels are essential to doing the work needed toenable change.

2. The need to be flexible, responsive, and to expect the unexpected.

3. The importance of supporting local agendas.

4. The need to work with those who have a shared vision.

5. The importance of investing in building local and UK organisational capacities, includinginvesting in core costs.

6. The importance of learning from experience.

7. The need to accept the long-term timescales needed for real change.

8. The understanding that money is essential, yet it is not the most important element inbringing about social change.

9. The need to see development as a joint venture. It is critical to take a real interest andwork honestly with diverse realities and take a joint problem sharing approach.

10. The need to remember ‘no one size fits all’ and to tailor the approach and grantdemands to the organisation involved.

11. The need to recognise that the donors hold power and the need ‘to use it well’ tochallenge, support, expand, listen, and learn and to avoid imposing ideas andframeworks that take valuable time and may not help.

12. The importance of ensuring good governance at all levels.

37

Part 6. Concluding comments

This report has thrown up a wide range of issues. This section summarizes the learning thathas emerged, including challenges for the future.

1. The BF and JEF deliver many areas of grant making in ways that grantees find enabling,supportive and which allow for good dialogue and openness. The feedback enabled thereview to highlight several principles of good grant making, which while at odds withdominant approaches to grant making currently used, mirror findings of recent studiesdone by independent researchers in UK. Together these provide strong evidence thatother trusts and Foundations can draw on to see how far different approaches fit theirown mission, values and mandate.

2. The review highlights the critical importance of the way grants are given andadministered in shaping relationships with grantees and their partners. It emergedclearly that grant making that is experienced as supportive of local agendas, that paysattention to capacity building and core costs, that sees the relationship as a three way

38

PHOTO COURTESY OF HEALTH POVERTY ACTION

39

relationship between donor, UK NGO and African partners (rather than one where thedonor sets and drives the agenda) promotes, for many, relationships of trust. In turn,relationships based on knowledge of each other and trust, enable more honesty andopenness about what happens in programmes; what works well and where thechallenges lie. They also allow a flexible approach when the unexpected occurs, as itnearly always does.

3. By sharing the different stages of grant making and highlighting feedback from the BFgrantees it is hoped to contribute to discussions within other Trusts and Foundationsabout which approaches work well. It is also hoped to stimulate NGOs thinking andworking in more transparent and collaborative ways with both their donors andpartners, taking into consideration the experiences shared in the report.

4. Several issues that need to be considered by grant makers have been highlighted,especially

• The need for proportionality around costs and the balance to be sought between grantcompliance on the one hand and building relationships based on trust on the other

• The issue of how tightly to focus – given the need for donors to work with coherentportfolios – while �